Posted on 10/04/2004 11:48:12 AM PDT by Michael Goldsberry
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who lost his job after defying a federal order to dismantle a Ten Commandments monument.
Moore has become a high-profile crusader for Ten Commandment monuments as a result of the dispute over his own 2 1/2-ton granite display in the state courthouse.
A federal judge ruled that Moore violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion when he placed the monument in the rotunda of the judicial building in the middle of the night in 2001.
The display was moved last year over Moore's objections, and a state court removed him from office.
Moore's lawyers had called on the Supreme Court to "remedy this travesty of justice" and give him his job back. The high court declined, without comment.
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary found that Moore violated canons of judicial ethics when he refused the federal court's order to move the monument. Moore could try to win back a seat on the court in 2006 elections.
The case is Moore vs. Judicial Inquiry Commission of the State of Alabama, 04-153.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
As predicted. Did anyone really think that the SCOTUS would take this case?
Legally, Moore didn't have much of a leg to stand on--BUT, I applaud whenever a local offical thumbs his nose at the feds. Hope Roy Moore is not the last local pol or judge to stick it to DC's "cossacks".
Good for the SCOTUS. Roy Moore acted like a fool. No sitting state judge should have believed he could ignore a federal court order, regardless of his politics or beliefs. Moore's behavior would lead to anarchy, and was properly penalized.
It's that kind of antifederalist attitude that lets the Entity on the Potomac run roughshod over the rights of the states. Glad you weren't around back in 1775, or we'd all be drinking tea and talking with some wussy accent.
Sorry to disagree, your version is antifederalist, not mine. If you believe Mr. Moore acted within his rights, I'm glad you're not judging a case for me.
You didn't read my earlier post. I said legally (interpreting FEDERAL law) Moore didn't have a leg to stand on. Legally, Rosa Parks was on legal thin ice at the time she refused to sit at the back of the bus. My point is:
1. MORALLY both Moore and Parks were on firm ground, and,
2. To be a Federalist means you are willing to bestow upon the states a certain degree of autonomy. Indeed, before the anomaly of the 14th Amendment was thrust upon the sovereign states in the aftermath of the Rebellion, the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states--and this is what the Framers INTENDED.
Since Congress is forbidden from passing any law having to do with the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, there can be no law for Judge Thompson to interpret. The only one behaving within the law was Moore.
Perhaps you do not realize the irony of your words here.
Cordially,
I don't disagree with giving atonomy to states. I just disagree with the idea that Mr. Moore was morally right to ignore a Federal Court Order. That's a funny view of morality.
No, I guess I don't. The only irony I see is put forth by the folks defending Mr. Moore's decision to move the monument into the courthouse in the middle of the night. Even he knew it was wrong, would cause enormous controversy, and might get him fired.
I take you believe Dred Scott was a moral decision, then.
In this case the 'Entity on the Potomac' refused to become involved with a state matter by overrulling the state judicial inquiry. Isn't that what you want?
Do you have anything more recent? I thought we were discussing something that happened in the last year. I do not think the Dred Scott decision was moral, but it's a non-sequitar argument to apply it here.
No, because the lily-livered Alabama S. Ct. was using a standard-issue (i.e. liberal-left) interpretation of the US (not Alabama) constitution. So even though it was a STATE court, it was doing the Feds dirtywork.
It's an old decision, but it's classically immoral, so it is relevant here.
So...it's OK for the Supreme Court to become involved if, and only if you agree with them? Otherwise they need to butt out?
It was decided around 1857 (sorry, I don't have a history book handy) by five Southern justices trying to diminish the separatist feelings in the south. It was a poor judicial decision, just like Mr. Moore's decision, so, in that way I guess you could say they were similar. Dred Scott didn't disobey any court orders, he just felt that after living in Minnesota he was free from slavery, in accordance with the Missouri Compromise. The majority of the court (all from the South) disagreed.
Mr. Moore just wanted his view of God and creation to be on display in "his" courthouse. It didn't belong there. I am tired of religious folk trying to invoke their religion in places it does not belong. I would not have cared to have a case tried by someone who thought like Mr. Moore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.